Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 28, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 264

The Problem of Evil

:iconresponsibleatheist:
ResponsibleAtheist Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
One of the most well-known arguments against the existence of the monotheistic god is the Problem of Evil. For those who don't know, I'll explain it to you:

Premise 1: God is omnipotent, and is therefore able to prevent evil from existing without any effort.
Premise 2: God is omniscient, and therefor knows that evil exists and how to prevent it.
Premise 3: God is omnibenevolent, so he wouldn't allow his creations to suffer pointlessly, more than others, or at all.
Premise 4: God exists.
Conclusion: Evil does not exist.

Let's assume that all 4 premises are correct. You'll notice that while the conclusion logically follows from the premises, it does not fit with reality. Every day, millions of people are suffering from diseases, injuries, starvation, acts of violence and so on. Since the conclusion follows logically from the premises, but does not fit with the reality, one of the premises must be false. We can draw 4 possible conclusions from this:

1. God can't prevent evil, and is therefore a finite being.
2. God doesn't know how to prevent evil or doesn't know that it exists, and is therefore a finite being.
3. God doesn't want to prevent evil, and is therefore malicious.
4. God does not exist.

Since omnipotence, omniscience and Omnibenevolence are fundamental characteristics of the god described in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, it means that this god can't exist.

Of course, there are arguments against the Problem of Evil. These are the following:

1. Freewill defense.

The most well-known argument against the Problem of Evil is the Freewill defense, originally formulated by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga claims that god can't create a world without evil, because than people wouldn't have complete freedom to make their own choices. This argument is accepted by many people, but there are several problems with this defense:

1. Many forms of suffering are not caused by freewill, but by natural events, like hurricanes, lightning strikes and tsunamis. Preventing these events would prevent suffering, but won't interfere with freewill. I know that some of these events are caused by human interference, either as an accident or because people didn't care enough. However, since it wasn't their intention to cause these events, it won't interfere with freewill to prevent these things from happening or causing suffering. Some apologists claim that these events are caused by demons, Satan, fallen angels or other non-human creatures who do possess freewill. However, why would an omniscient, omnibenevolent being allow these creatures to exist in the first place if they will only cause suffering? What good did creating these creatures do? And even if the good they did outweighed the bad, couldnīt God have created creatures who WOULDNīT do all those evil things?
2. Most people who use the Freewill defense believe in Heaven, a place where people don't suffer. This would mean that in Heaven, there is no freewill, even though God supposedly cares more about freewill than about the wellbeing of his creations. The fact that god can create a place where there's freewill, but no suffering, completely destroys the Freewill defense. Some argue that God only allows people into heaven who only do good things. However, the good qualities of these people couldnīt prevent them from sinning every second of their life (especially since things like looking lustfully at someone (which is completely natural) is sinful), and if they could, than we would never see someone who has been established as a good person do a bad thing. So if their qualities couldnīt keep them from sinning every second of their finite live, than how could they prevent them from sinning during their ETERNITY in heaven? And if God makes it so that they canīt lose their sinless qualities in heaven, then he would be interfering with free will (which counters the freewill defense).
3. According to Alvin Plantinga, we are created in god's image, and therefore have freewill. Since God is omnibenevolent, it means that it's possible for beings to have freewill, but be without evil.
4. In certain cases, freewill will be affected regardless of god's interference. Take for example a woman being raped. If god interferes, it (at most) affects the freewill of the rapist. If he doesn't interfere, he allows the rapist to force the woman to have sex with him, AGAINST HER WILL. In both cases, at least one person's freewill is going to be effected, but by interfering, god will save the woman instead of allowing the rapist to continue violating her. An omnibenevolent god would help her, so why do thousands of women get raped each year?
5. People are constantly crediting miracles to God, meaning that he supposedly DOES interfere with people for their sake. So much for freewill, right?
6. Both Yahweh and Jehovah (and possibly Allah, I haven't read the Quran) have interfered with humans numerous times in their holy books. They have performed miracles, showed themselves to people, and even participated in experiments to prove their existence. In fact, Jehovah/Yahweh hardened the Pharaoh's hart so he wouldn't release the Jews from Egypt (Exodus 4:21-23), meaning that he interfered with the Pharaoh's freewill. Therefore, the Freewill defense doesn't apply to the god described in most monotheistic religions.
7. If God is omniscient, he already knows everything that we're going to do. The only way for this to be possible is if the future is predetermined, which means that we don't have free will. So if God is omniscient, than we can't have free will.

2. Suffering makes us stronger.

According to many people, God makes us suffer to make us stronger. After all, you can't know good without experiencing the bad. However, this argument doesn't really hold water, because some groups suffer much more than other groups. There are people who never have to work and always get three meals a day, while there are also people who are starving to death and suffering from diseases. Why do these people get to suffer so much more than those other people? Also, when a baby dies of cancer, it won't make his stronger, it will KILL him. Theists than say that it was meant to make the baby's parents stronger, but what kind of God would allow a baby to suffer an agonizing death, just so his parents can undergo some character development? What kind of parent would love a being that would do such a thing to their child for that reason? I know that some forms of suffering eventually have positive results in some way, but a lot of suffering is completely pointless and is way too much for the victims to handle.

Theists also often claim that God is testing us. Why would he do that if he's supposed to be omniscient? And why would he ''test'' babies, who don't yet have the mental skills to understand any kind of test? It has also been proven that physical and emotional damage as a baby has negative effects on you your whole life (like being more sensitive to pain, or having a lower I.Q) ([link] and [link])

3. It's part of God's plan.

It's ironic how this argument completely contradicts the claim that we have freewill (the basis of the Freewill defense). Therefore, you can't use the Freewill defense, while at the same time claim that god has a plan for us (in case you did both those things).

As I stated before, a lot of suffering seems completely pointless, and therefor is unlikely to be part of an omnibenevolent god's plan. If a woman dies during childbirth, it means that the child won't have a mother, and the father has to raise the child on his own and has just lost his wife. Why would God make this part of his plan? And what about all those cases where a factory burns down, killing dozens of people and leaving hundreds without a job? Also, why would God make a commandment called ''Thou shall not kill''? If god has planned every death, it would be pointless for him to tell his followers not to kill, because they wouldn't have done it anyway unless God wanted them to do it. Therefore, a god who makes these commandments is very unlikely to have planned every form of suffering, including murders. Also, couldnīt an omnipotent, omniscient God come up with a plan which DIDNīT require the painful deaths of babies and young children?

4. God works in mysterious ways.

People constantly use this argument without realizing that it's just a case of special pleading. After all, any criminal can claim that he worked in mysterious ways. By theistic logic, we would have to buy this. Also, they often use other arguments (like that he punishes people), which means they DO claim to know his reasons.

5. The suffering happening on earth is insignificant compared to the joy in Heaven.

According to many theists, the joy that we experience in Heaven makes the suffering insignificant. However, as I already said before, many people suffer much more than other people, making the whole experience still unnecessarily unfair. Also, according to Christianity, Judaism and Islam, most people won't go to Heaven, because they worship another god or do something else that's considered sinful. Therefore, at least half of the world's population will go to hell, which greatly damages the argument's credibility.

Also, Christians often claim that one day, God WILL bring an end to suffering and evil. If this is true, then why hasn't he done it already? Maybe he could have done this instead of, oh I don't know, KILLING EVERYTHING on the planet with a huge flood?

And if what happens on earth is insignificant compared with heaven, why didnīt God just have humans be born in heaven in the first place? What did he accomplice by making them suffer so much on earth for all those years/decades? Christians than say that Adam and Eve used to live in Heaven (the Garden of Eden), and chose to leave by eating from the fruit (even though God never mentioned that they would be thrown out, and instead said that they would die). However, why did only they get this choice? Why didnīt their billions of decedents get this choice too?

6. Criminals and other evil people will eventually be punished for their crimes by spending eternity in hell.

I know that some Christians don’t think Hell is eternal (or that there’s even a literal hell), so some of these arguments might not apply to them. But let me explain why spending of all eternity in agony is a completely pointless and unjust punishment:

1. When people suffers in hell for all of eternity, it won't undo the damage that they have done to the world when they were still alive, meaning that their victims were not saved in any way. Even when the victims survived, the idea that their tormenters spend all of eternity in hell will not make them feel any better. After all, what kind of sadist would enjoy the idea that someone is spending all of eternity suffering in hell?
2. Will suffering for eternity teach them WHY their actions were bad? An omnipotent god could come up with a much better punishment. For example, he could make them suffer all the wrongs that they have ever done to others, and then their punishments would end. This punishment would be much more effective, and a lot shorter.
3. Before creating these people, god already knew that they would spend eternity in hell, so why did he create them anyway? It's better to have never existed in the first place, than spend an eternity in agony.

Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would not send people to hell.

7. Our definition of evil is different from God's.

According to Theists, God created us in his image, and is the source of our morality. This makes it very unlikely that God's definition of evil different from ours. Also, why would God allow us to have such a different definition of evil when it causes so many misunderstandings?

8. Evil is simply an absence of good.

This doesn't solve the problem of evil; it simply replaces the term ''evil'' with ''absence of good''. It's still the same thing. You can call ''cold'' the ''absence of heat'', but it's still the same thing.

9. The evil in the word is caused by the fall.

According to most Christians, evil and sin came into the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed god by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. However, God is omniscient, meaning that he knew that all of this was going to happen eons before it happened. Why did he even put that tree in the garden when he knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat from it? Even if he had to put it in the garden, he could have put it somewhere where Adam and Ever weren't able to reach it. Also, why did God create the serpent when he knew that he was going to tempt Adam and Eve into eating from the fruit (he could have at least warned them about the snake)? It seems like the fall of men was planned out by God, even though God is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

Also, how come God decided to create a universe where decisions made by humans (like having sex the wrong way, or doing something else God doesn't want them to do) affect the physical world and cause things like hurricanes, tsunamis and diseases? I'm not talking about the direct consequences that the action has (like how someone dying is the consequence of someone shooting at him), I'm talking about the Christian belief that immoral actions affect the in an almost magical way.

10. God is not the creator of evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, King James Version)

Nice try, Lee Strobel ([link])

11. Humans must take care of their own problems.

Christians constantly claim that God doesn't interfere because people have to solve their own problems (like saving people who are in need). The problem with this is that in many cases, humans aren't able to solve the problem, which God already knows in advance. For example, if someone fails to save a child from drowning, God already knew that he (God) would be the child's only hope. So why doesn't he do anything? Also, why doesn't he at least provide people with the tools needed to solve their own problems? For example, why doesn't he turn all the deserts into fertile land and alter the weather patterns so that all humans can grow their own food (eliminating world hunger)?

Conclusion:

As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one.

There's a perfectly logical reason for death and suffering. The reason is that nature is indifferent to our suffering, and there's no omnipotent force to help us, so we're on our own. WE are the only people who can make the world a better place.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconpokecat:
pokecat Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No madder what religion, evil exist anyway.
So it is part of nature of things, good and evil are like matter and antimatter.
Reply
:iconxyloz:
xyloz Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
I have only one issue with this...

WE are the only people who can make the world a better place...

How can it be "better", when the premise of bad is false?
Reply
:iconresponsibleatheist:
ResponsibleAtheist Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013
How do you mean īīthe premise of bad is falseīī? And yes, we are the only beings who can make this world a better place.
Reply
:iconxyloz:
xyloz Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
In your core argument you show that God as a premise is bunk.
Furthermore, as a concept evil is a founding principle of the morality the bible lays down is also bunk, therefore if the statement
The bible is fictional can be construed to be true, the premises inside the bible can also be said to be fictitious in nature.
Sure good fiction is based on truth, however, the idea of evil is a foundation on heaven and what goes against god's will.

Evil is synonymous with being bad.

So to say the world would be better is introducing a concept that flows against your entire structured diatribe.

Better how?
There is No Evil!

1) Freewill - Every creature on this planet has freewill, we all strive to survive, therefore when bacteria infest us they are not bad.
They are fighting to survive, and evolve strengths against our immune system so that they can slowly feeding off us evolve and move on.
Some have learned to live in our gut without ever being affected by the immune system and some are lethal to us.

2) Suffering makes us stronger. - Evolution, based on circumstances. If a race is not intelligent enough to make their situation more hospitable then their lineage is forced to adapt to survive. Sure you can say a lot of people die in Africa but a lot more are born, they have adapted to death. One could say they are evolving at a rapid rate to cope with the climate.

3) God's will - 1)Freewill (Reinforced)

4) Mysterious Ways - 2)(Counterpart) to suffering makes us stronger.

5) Suffering on earth - 2) (Counterpart) In this argument - It is shown that not everyone believes in heaven,
God putting an end to evil, via a flood... This just shows that god is unfairly biased towards fish.
This is the first point that heaven is a ridiculous notion, as a result so is hell, and the criteria to enter each.

6) - 5) Furthers the concept of Hell as ludicrous

7) The definition of evil, Showing that we define the terms... Sure we do it differently to God but a name is a name it's the morality equation.

8) Evil the absence of good, redefining the term without solving the constructed morality equation.

9) Bunking the premise that immorality is a factor of why we are here. Furthermore showing immorality is a flawed concept and that Evil is ridiculous.

10) Showing that Evil is intrinsically in the bible alone.

11) Stating in short - to rely on God to fix our problems is Illogical as he doesn't exist.

So there is no god and there are no Evil's just motivation and evolution.

Welcome to the world you live in.


Lets look at a few evils shall we with this new premis and see if they fit...


Murder and Rape - There is always a motivation on an evolutionary stance.
Murder allows less competition and a higher chance of ones own lineage to prosper.
Lions often kill the children of a rival alpha male to then rape the lioness to have their own offspring.
To say that the act of rape is intrinsically evil when the result is life is backward. If anything rape was the driving force of mankinds evolution for millennia and still is for many species to this day.

Arson - The idea that fire is evil is flawed as fire has no free will, a person setting fires for pleasure has a motivation.
Property is a construct of the human mind, also, it is founded in the bible under stealing a loaf of bread.
To say a living being is property is human in nature - Pets
However the idea of property is also rediculous.

Theft - As with arson the idea of property is human in nature you cannot steal what never belonged to you, when you die your body is just a physical arrangement of atoms that housed your mind so what is there to rob when the mind is gone?

Natural large scale events,
Floods
Earthquakes
Volcanoes
Hurricanes
All just killing on circumstance, if you choose to live in an area of cross winds or low/high pressure, at the foot of a mountain, near tectonic shifts and next to water then these are things you should be prepared for!
If you aren't then who's fault is it that your house got washed away.
It's like making a nest out of stinging nettles.
Either don't do it or adapt to live in it.
For example reef fish who live in sea anemones.

I could go on but as the premise suggests Evil is a construct of man written in a book.
And in fact never existed in the first place.

Morals therefore are a selfish notion that need the follower to have self worth to be understood.
(do unto others as they would do to YOU) This follows a construct of the Bible and adhere to the notion that evil exists and therefore is evil itself incarnate.

To be immoral cannot therefore be a bad thing in fact it is an evolutionary default.

Furthermore justification is a notion of moral reasoning

Therefore - Without the the premises in the bible the idea of having to justify ones actions to someone else is pointless.
All laws of property and morality fail, as the ideas themselves are build on a faulty premise, the construct is man made.

The point isn't that God can rid us of evil.

Evil is a man made invention and the premises surrounding are also man made interpretations of reality and in fact doesn't exist.

So how can the world (A ball of moulten hot iron) be made Better?
You mean to say...

We can make the world a more hospitable place for us, every other species we don't require can go the way of the do-do.
Reply
:iconartofguy:
artofguy Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Student Artist
What do you think life would be like in your "evil-free" world?

What we consider evil is a reflection of the largest challenges we face in life. There are internet communities populated largely by middle-class liberal Americans who consider referring to someone by the wrong pronoun to be horrible.
Reply
:iconresponsibleatheist:
ResponsibleAtheist Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
I didnīt state that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would get rid of every form of suffering or hardship. But a lot of suffering in our world is basically pointless (like a baby dying from an agonizing disease or genetic defect).
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
If "it" does exist God is not good. [link]
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words...Jeremiah 45:21-23.

"Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them. Because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered...Jeremiah 35:17.

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness. "I make peace, and create evil." I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness. Let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it...Isaiah 45:5-8
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Except for Jesus who is before me and the Holy Spirit (whatever that is?) who stands over to the side.
Reply
:iconedwardspaghetti:
EdwardSpaghetti Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2012
Feh. A truly omnipotent God would not be like the things of this universe, borne ceaselessy forward in the stream of time so that the past would be irrevocable and the future inevitable.

For all you know, time is actually moving backwards, and all the evil deeds are being reabsorbed by the beings that commit them.

A truly omnipotent God could rewind our universe like a rented videocassete to bring us to a pristine final state where no evil deeds happened at all, and there was no suffering; he could back up the tape and reedit it, rearrange the scenes, or simply leave it paused and go to the kitchen for Cheetos.

What kind of cheap, second-rate omnipotence cannot make things unhappen?
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Let the Doctor explain: [link]
Reply
:icongreatchalupaking:
GreatChalupaKing Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
you has written a lots on this post thingy. you is must be a very smart person or something. you does use big words. very smart indeed.
Reply
:iconworkoutprogress:
workoutprogress Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012   Photographer
Did you forget the clockmaker argument?
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Worst argument ever.
Reply
:iconplutonia-v41:
Plutonia-V41 Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This is not an argument against the existence of God, but an argument for the malevolence of God. According to the idea of Hell, God is actually pure evil. It's all about the logical reasons of punishment. The only reason for any authority figure to punish someone with incarceration are:

</b>1. To prevent the person from continuing to do the thing that he was incarcerated for.
2. To show the person the consequences of disobedience so that they could obey the rules in the future.
3. To make the person serve as an example to others, to encourage them to obey the rules.</b>

...so, let's see which reason God applies to justifying sending people to Hell.

1. Prevention can't be the reason, because the incarceration happens after death, therefore even wihtout the punishment it would not be possible for the person to continue doing that which got the person incarcerated. God does not send people to Hell to keep them from doing immoral acts in the future.
2. Teaching a lesson can't be the reason, because the incarceration happens after death, so there is no way for the person to put the lesson into practice in the future. God does not send people to Hell to teach them a lesson.
3. Making examples can't be the reason, because Hell is beyond perception. No information can reach this plane of existence. If it could, the existence of Hell would be a scientific fact. There's no way for people to be persuaded to be moral by observing what happens to them in Hell if they aren't. God does not send people to Hell to set them as examples for others on what not to do.

---

Therefore, God punishes people with eternal torture, literally for absolutely no reason. That is pure evil. If the stereotypical Christian God would exist, he would be more evil than the Devil himself, just because of this one feature of his.
Reply
:iconcodepurpleyedrawings:
CodePurpleyedrawings Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Isn't hell originally just a common resting place for the dead? Not even a place of suffering, just a purgatorial state after death called scheol?
I heard that.
Reply
:iconlyteside:
lyteside Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
"Hell" as described in the bible is a very vague place or state. More than once, Jesus borrows from cultural references to describe it, assuming it is an actual physical place.

Hades is a Greek idea that Jesus used. He later used a trash dump to describe it.

For all we know, it could be intended as merely a warning for us, and Christians might have a need to be careful to not create too much theology behind it.
Reply
:iconvulpimo:
Vulpimo Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
'As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one.'

Logical fallacy.

Too many false statements brings you to false conclusion.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Namely what?
Reply
:iconvulpimo:
Vulpimo Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
Half of the things he stated, really.

'Our definition of evil is different from God's.'
bullshit
'Evil is simply an absence of good.'
bullshit
'The evil in the word is caused by the fall.'
bullshit
'I know that some Christians don’t think Hell is eternal'
Too bad Christianity does. Therefore, bullshit.

the list of fails is almost as long as this post. Some people shouldn't be allowed to be OPs, lol.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Every one of your answers is mere subjective opinion as there are a myriad of interpretations each one with their on caveats on certain passages of scripture. That's why there are so many different denominations in the first place.
Reply
:iconvulpimo:
Vulpimo Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
umm no ^^
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Umm yes. If there was just ONE interpretation then there would be one religion but it's not. Their are somewhere around 41,000 denominations of Christianity which is itself a branch of Judaism.
All of them claiming the truth and you dismiss them all in favor of your personal interpretation that you claim to be true. As you know you all CAN'T be right but they all can be wrong.
Reply
:iconvulpimo:
Vulpimo Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Except when you know that two contradictory things can't be dragged under one definition
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
That's what I was getting at either all of them are wrong or you are wrong and then you both can be wrong.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
... And you calling such things bullshit is justified by...?

Seen as all of those points can be argued to be true, despite the highly subjective nature of each term and interpretations of each named aspect.

But I really want the justification that THIS is a logical fallacy: 'As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one.'
Reply
:iconvulpimo:
Vulpimo Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012
I call these things 'bullshit' because he made them out of thin air without even trying to say where did he get it from and made them a thesis for his conclusions.

'Seen as all of those points can be argued to be true' As a matter of fact, they are all false.

The last one is a logical fallacy because he used false thesis to come up with a conclusion. If you claim that the grass is blue and sky is green, you can 'prove' that salad is blue and ocean is green. False conclusions coming from false information, not the process itself.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Not ONE of those rather... incoherent arguments is justifying any of the statements you have made.

Every single one of those points he made are about something of a highly subjective nature. Which means they can be argued to be true from definitions of the words used.

To deny this then you need to define the words used correctly, source or cite sources contradicting him on his conceptions of religious views or ideas, and basically build an argument. Not repeat what you have already said in a slightly longer and unnecessarily incoherent manner.
Reply
:iconvulpimo:
Vulpimo Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
Why? If they are incoherent, I call it bullshit, simple as that.

'Which means they can be argued to be true from definitions of the words used' As a matter of fact, no. Every knowledgeable person would recognize these statements as very naive OPINION, hung in the air, without ANY basis.

'source or cite sources contradicting him' It's hard to cite something that would contradict a random number of illogical statements made out of nowhere.
In fact, look at this:

'8. Evil is simply an absence of good.' This statement doesn't just contradict the facts, it is just plain random. No basis, no reason, not even a single try to clarify this mistake. If you know the definitions of 'evil' and 'good' you already know that this is nothing more than blabbering.


'Not repeat what you have already said in a slightly longer and unnecessarily incoherent manner.' English isn't your first language, right?
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
... Just because you are incapable of understanding or recognising the basis does not indicate it`s absence.

To use your example next to a dictionary definition of Good and Evil:
Good(In this context): that which is morally right; righteousness
Evil: profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force, etc...

By this definition I could take the view of the world that NOTHING is neutral as far as good or evil goes. Everything is either evil or good on a scale where neutrality is a balance that is only theoretical. From this point of view, fucking evidently, Evil is quite definitely the absence of Good. This might not be the view he is taking, but is IS a view, and one you can evidently not see.

Not that any of this is relevant: "Evil is simply the absence of good" is an argument that has been used to against him, that he is qualifying as irrelevant in this argument.

Now let`s get back to the original point: "As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one." Refute that correctly. How is that, in any way, a logical fallacy?

..."Not repeat what you have already said in a slightly longer and unnecessarily incoherent manner" Read again. Maybe you are not used to a slightly more intellectual form of language. Which I would not find surprising.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012  Hobbyist
Simple answer to your questions? That's why there's a song called: "To God be the Glory." And, since God is the Creator of all life. Thus, God can execute death or life...Just, because God knows the past and the future, that doesn't mean He controls your "free will" to choose, whether if it is "good or evil." That's why the Bible declares, God will judges everyone according to our "Deeds." Whether if it's good or evil.
Reply
:iconresponsibleatheist:
ResponsibleAtheist Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
The only way God can know the future is if the future is already predetermined. This means that all our actions and choices are garunteed to have one specific outcome, meaning that we donīt actually have the freedom to make our own choices.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist
Why blame God? If you choosen to God or Satan? If you choose God or Satan as your personal saviour then-your destination is pre-determined. Just, because God is all knowing from past and future, that doesn't mean that He has taken your free will to choose. So, therefore, God has not taken away our free will of choice...
Reply
:iconlyteside:
lyteside Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
Logically, God's foreknowledge of what we are going to choose doesn't mean we can't do or choose something else - it only means that God knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom isn't restricted by God's foreknowledge - rather, it is simply realized ahead of time by God.

In other words, knowing something will happen doesn't mean I am preventing or causing it to happen.

The issue here is understanding the nature of God and time. If God exists in all times and places, then God is not restricted to time in the same way we are (making God a non-linear entity). In this understanding, the "future" can be known by God because God lives in the future as well as the present and the past. It also implies that God is not restricted to operating in our present only. And his foreknowledge certainly doesn't mean that the future is predetermined in the way you are describing it.
Reply
:iconresponsibleatheist:
ResponsibleAtheist Featured By Owner Dec 7, 2012
It's not that God prevents free will by having perfect knowledge of the future. I'm saying that God can only have perfect knowledge of the future (which an omniscient god has) if the future is pre-determined and can't be changed. If we can't change the future, then we can only follow one path, meaning that we don't have free will.

Even if God exists outside time, it doesn't solve the problem:
1.God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2.If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
3.If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4.If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5.Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Hobbyist
That's exactly what God is doing, He is bring what we wish so that we can see how human kind are desparetely very wicked and evil. So, God is not taking away our free will of choice. That's why there will be the day of judgment and it shall be executed. Otherwise, if mankind were not evil, then there's no need for the day of judgment.
Reply
:iconlyteside:
lyteside Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012
The concepts of determinism and free will can be compatible with each other, not contradictory.

The strength of greek step logic is pointing out when things are false (as when laws such as the law of non-contradiction is violated). However, step logic's ability to prove conclusions is only as good as its premise held. For example, a position of "entities with free will have non-determinate futures" is an assumption that cannot be proven. And even so, we must agree on what "free will" is...

Would we say that free will means "able to choose any conceivable thing, including things contrary to one's nature"? I hope not, as that would start to go down the realm of contradictory. I find this liberalism view of free will to be very flawed, while the compatiblism resonates with me more - that we must choose things that are congruous to our nature.

To sum up, there is a ton more work that you need to do to prove your case. There is no law of excluded middle here that you could employ to prove that free will is not compatible with determinism. You can prove "free will" or "not free will" using excluded middle, but you cannot prove "not free will" if "determinism" without defining terms better. The burden of proof is on you to show that liberlist free will exists.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Well from what I see is that it's a different case when there is a supposed author to a determined outcome.
A character within a novel can do nothing to change the fate that has been written down for them.
Reply
:iconlyteside:
lyteside Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
A very interesting metaphor, with many various interpretations. While some authors may perceive themselves as puppet masters (a valid approach), others, including myself, see ourselves as scribes, recording the events that have already transpired. Such authors ask "What did Barnaby do?" rather than "What shall I make Barnaby do?" Here lies the mystery of such an approach - where determinism of the author and the free will of his character work together.

If Barnaby is a good-hearted, insecure, friendly rat, my readers will think me absurd if i write an action that is contrary to these qualities - "Barnaby laughed and pointed at the tiny mouse being picked on by the gang of rats." So we can see that the author is limited by the qualities of his characters. The real question that remains: Does the author create Eveything from scratch? Or is he rather collaborating with his characters, both guiding them, yet also learning from them.

This is why the Hebrews write of both God and Pharoah hardening his heart in Exodus. They viewed things as a dance, if you will. A symbiotic relationship between man and God, influencing the course of history.

God's foreknowledge of such history does not contradict the fact that humans influence it (nor does it mean that Gods perfect plan can't include the mistakes and choices of humans).
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
Your analogy fails in that you have every means to set the characters action even against it's will. I like that you mention the hardening of Pharoah's heart as God tells Moses that this is what he will do long before Moses returns to Egypt. Had not God hardened his heart would Pharoah had released the slaves? I mean WHY do that except to show off and even then he makes sure Pharaoh doesn't get the message so he can go kill all the firstborn sons. An omnipotent being that can literally do anything else to free the slave decides this is the right path. (By the way I'm speaking hypothetically as there is evidence that the story never occurred at all or in the very least as it was written in the bible) [link]

"(nor does it mean that Gods perfect plan can't include the mistakes and choices of humans)."
For the plan to be perfect it would have to include said mistakes meaning the fate was forced upon them as it could not have occurred any other way for the plan to be perfect.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist
The Bible predicted that mankind chooses only evil instead of good, that's why God has sent His only begotten Son to save his people that He has plan to become saved.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist
No, God will change the future - Because, He saw mankind are desparately wicked and needed a Saviour. Therefore, that's when God comes in to save mankind for their evil ways.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012
That's not "changing" the future since it's already been planned.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Evil exists not in man but monsters.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
God and the Devil are one and the same. That's why nothing makes sense. We are just a big experiment and I refuse to be one of his little white mice.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist
Because the Bible teaches very clear, if you're evil, He will send evil until you learn yourself to turn away from them.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
God is a sadist..
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012  Hobbyist
Yes, God is sadist to those who are desparetly wicked.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
And people who shout the loudest about God are the ones who must have some real skeletons in their closet.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Evil exists, and it is in the service of the Church.
Reply
Add a Comment: